Customary Pledge of Land in Nigeria
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
International Journal of Innovative Legal & Political Studies 7(2):25-30, April-June, 2019 © SEAHI PUBLICATIONS, 2019 www.seahipaj.org ISSN: 2467-8503 Customary Pledge Of Land In Nigeria Okafor, Samuel Obumneme Esq LLB, BL, LLM, Notary Public Senior Lecturer, Department of Business Law, Faculty of Law, Enugu State University of Science and Technology, Agbani-Enugu State, Nigeria Aduaka Charles Emenogha Esq LLM, BL, Ph.D Senior Lecturer, Department of International Law & Jurisprudence, Faculty of Law, Enugu State University of Science and Technology, Agbani-Enugu State, Nigeria ABSTRACT Pledge of land under the native law and custom could easily be mistaken for customary tenancy as the two transactions are very similar but yet highly divergent in many ways. Economics and other domestic needs may lead to a landowner giving out the possession of his land upon a pledge and while he gives out possession, retains title very much in the same way as the overlord under a customary tenancy arrangement. The rules and characteristic of customary pledge were based mainly on the degree of trust which people had in one another in the olden days under the customary setting. Today however, most pledges of land have due to long possession resorted to adverse claims over the pledged land against the pledgors which has resulted to needless and avoidable litigations over conquest for title. The peculiar nature of the customary pledge and the ease with which it could be exploited by the unscrupulous pledgee to attempt to expropriate the pledgor of his interest in the land has brought up the need to examine the nature of customary pledge and appreciate its reassuring peculiar characteristics which have refused to yield to the schemes of the greedy and to give them a leeway to foreclose redemption. Keywords: Customary Pledge, Customary Law, Tenancy, Mortgage and Redemption INTRODUCTION A pledge is a form of security transaction known to customary law. It is entered into where the owner- occupier of land known as the pledgeor in order to secure an advance of money or money’s worth, gives possession and use of the land to the creditor known as the pledgee until the debt is fully discharged. On the meaning of pledge under customary law, the Court of Appeal in Ahaneku v Iheaturu1 explained that it means promise, vow, agreement, undertaking, security, pawn or guarantee. Explaining the nature of customary pledge in Alloysius Eze Egbe v Ochichi Duru2, the Supreme Court stated thus; Ordinarily, a case of a pledge of land and or its redemption certris peribus (if all things be equal) does not involve an issue of title to the pledged land. By the very nature of such a transaction, the pledge or retains title in himself and the pledge has mere possession. Furthermore, by the very nature of customary pledge, it is perpetually redeemable. The temporary occupation license of the pledgee terminates on redemption. The pledgor retains thereafter both title and possession yielded to him upon redemption. Where however, a pledgee denies the pledge transaction, asserts and claims both title and possession in himself, it is a contest for title. 1 (1995) 2 NWLR pt 380 p 758. 2 (1998) 9 NWLR pt 565 p288. 25 Okafor &Aduaka..…. Int. J. Innovative Legal & Political Studies 7(2):25-30, 2019 In Polo v Ojor3, the Court of Appeal described a customary pledge as an indigenous mortgage by which the owner occupier of land in order to secure an advantage of money gives possession and use of his land to the pledgee creditor until redemption, that is when possession is re-exchanged for a full discharge of the debt. The possession of a pledge land remains with the pledgee until redemption by the pledgor. From the foregoing description, some essential or characteristic features of a pledge under native law and custom are discernible; 1. That the pledge provides the pledgee creditor with security for the performance of the pledgor’s obligation of repaying the debt. 2. That the security takes the form of giving the pledgee possession of the pledgor’s land or property. 3. It is only possession of the pledged land that is delivered to the pledgee by the pledgor but not together with the title to the land pledged as the pledgor retains title in himself, while the pledgee has mere possession. 4. The customary pledge is perpetually redeemable by the pledgor or his successors-in-title. 5. The possession or temporary occupational license of the pledgee terminates upon the land being redeemed by the pledgor who then resumes possession and retained both possession and title. 6. The pledgee can never deny the title the pledgor or the pledgee transaction but it he does so, it results to a contest for title between the pledgor and the pledgee over the pledged land. 7. A pledge naturally precedes its redemption and thus, if there is no pledge, there can be no redemption and by necessary extrapolation, a redemption presupposes that there was a pledge. Ebevuhe & Ors v Ukpakara & Ors4. 8. There is normally no specific time for the redemption of the pledge. No matter how long a pledge lasts before redemption it can never mature into ownership of the land in favour of the pledgee. 9. The pledge transaction does not and cannot confer on the pledgee the power to sell the pledged land to discharge the pledgor’s obligation to him and if the pledgee does so, such disposition will be void. Customary Pledge and Mortgage under the English (Received) Law. The customary pledge is sometimes confused with the English mortgage. Elias in Nigerian Land Law 4th Edition pp 153 – 254 described a pledge as a kind of indigenous mortgage. The problem of the confusion is usually further compounded by the practice of reducing customary transactions into writing and failing to use the language that is precise enough to indicate the nature of the transaction. Thus, the controversy over the transaction in the case of Nwabuoku v Ottih5 stemmed from an agreement of loan between two parties whereby the plaintiff gave the defendant possession of his house with rights to collect rents and profits therefrom, but a document was later executed describing the transaction as a mortgage. The confusion naturally arose because the distinction between a customary pledge and the English mortgage transactions is in the nature of the security granted to the creditor under each transaction. If the agreement is intended to give the creditor some proprietary estate or interest in the property then, irrespective of the fact that the creditor takes possession of the property under an express stipulation or by operation of law, the transaction is a mortgage. In the other hand, in a pledge, actual possession of the property is the whole essence of the creditor’s security. It will therefore be proper to describe a pledge as a possessory security while the common law mortgage is a proprietary security. Thus, in Adejei v Dabanka6, the court put the matter thus. 3 (2003) 3 NWLR pt 807 p344. 4 (1996) 7 NWLR pt 460 p254. 5 (1961) All NLR p487. 6 (1930) WACA 63 @ 66-67. 26 Okafor &Aduaka..…. Int. J. Innovative Legal & Political Studies 7(2):25-30, 2019 It is an essential of a native mortgage (pledge) that possession should be given at the time when transaction takes place between the parties. It is out of the possession granted under the agreement that the pledge’s rights spring. Understandably therefore, the usual arrangement under customary pledge transactions is that the pledgee shall enter upon the pledgor’s land and enjoy the rents and profits from the land until the pledged land is redeemed. Perpetual Redeemability of a Pledge The nature of customary law pledge is demonstrated by the maxim once a pledgee always a pledgee which is an age long maxim under customary law. - Melifonwu v Egbuji7 - Taiwo v Dosunmu8 - Adegboyega v Igbinosun9 - Ikeanyi v Adighogu10 - Ebvuhe v Ukpakara11 The maxim signifies two basic principles; namely 1. That a thing which is pledged is never lost. So long as it is possible to identify the original purpose or understanding behind the transaction, the land and the parties or their successors to the pledge there is a right to redeem the land not withstanding that many years have elapsed from the date of the transaction. 2. That notwithstanding any stipulation in the agreement for the postponement of the redemption date, the pledgor would be allowed to redeem his property within the stipulated period by tendering the money due for payment under the pledge transaction. This is so notwithstanding that the pledgee had expanded money on improvement or that he has invested money and labour in growing crops yet to be harvested. Adjei v Dabanka12. It is thus obvious that the right of the pledgor to redeem cannot be defeated by lapse of time and may be exercised by the pledgor’s successors in title. This right to redeem is absolute and cannot be fettered by agreement. In Laragun v Funlayo13 a pledged land which enured for 30 years was held to be redeemable. - Amao v Adigun14 - Okoioko v Esedalue15 - Okpowaga v Ewhedoma16 The rule is also that the pledgee is expected to put the pledged land to ordinary use. Thus, a pledgee who plants economic trees or erects permanent structures in the absence of express agreement does so at his own risk or peril. Thus in Okoioko v Esedalue17 Elias CJN (as he then was) put the matter this; “The very nature of a customary pledge which is perpetually redeemable is that the pledgee has only a temporary occupation license and that he must yield up the pledged land as far as possible in the form he took it originally.